The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Developed by Zain Sheikh

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) Arts. 80 & 81
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 129 & 139

Read with West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance (XXV of 1961), S. 25—Whether Agricultural Development Corporation cannot be delegated with powers of Governor because corporation cannot be treated as an officer (Quaere)—[Ahad Shah v. Emperor 19 Cr. L J 486 and Emperor v. Karam Chand Gobind Ram 45 Cr. L J 64 cited]. [p. 689] ALearned counsel then cited Ahad Shah v. Emperor (1) and Emperor v. Karam Chand Gobind Ram (2), and vehementaly argued that the Agricultural Development Corporation cannot thus be delegated with the powers of the Governor because the Corporation cannot be treated as an officer. We do not consider it necessary to give a finding on this contention because our decision may affect the working of the similar authorities which are not before us, and also because we find substance in the second and third contentions mentioned above. (p. 689) A
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 177 & 178
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 241

Contention that employees of Thal Development Authority under the Thal Development Act (XV of 1949) were entitled to protection of Act. 177 negatived—[Irshad Muhammad Mirza v. Road Transport Corporation, West Pakistan P L D 1966 Lah. 632 ref. ]. [p. 693] H

Learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly contended that the petitioners enjoyed the constitutional guarantees as laid down in Article 177 of the Constitution since they were persons holding civil posts in connection with the affairs of the province and were appointed by persons authorized by the Governor of the Province as provided in Article 178 of the Constitution, and in any case since previous approval of the Provincial Government was necessary in case of approval of the Provincial Government was necessary in case of appointment of the servants of the Authority whose grade exceeded one thousand rupees, therefore, they should be considered as persons entitled to protection of the Constitutional guarantees. A contrary view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Irshad Muhammad Mirza v. Road Transport Corporation, West Pakistan (1). It is also unnecessary to further examine this proposition of law in the circumstances of this case as we have otherwise held that the petitioners are entitled to the relief which they have prayed for, on the basis of violation of the Act and the Rules. (p. 693) H